Transcript of Key Exchanges from Thomas King Interview

Note: This is a rushed transcript.

On the NRA's Position on Universal Background Checks

Thomas King: The NRA has never approved universal background checks, and neither do we. We are for background checks for everyone who is purchasing a gun at gun shows. But to say that I can’t leave a firearm to my son without giving him a background check, that’s not the way things are done in the United States.

Brian Lehrer: But Ms. Lanza gave a gun to her son without a background check, didn't she?

Thomas King: No, that’s not what she did. Those were illegal guns because he killed his mother and stole those guns. I’m tired of the press spinning this. Those were not legal guns – he stole those guns.

On Illegal Guns from Other States Entering New York City

Thomas King: The problem is that in big cities, they don’t enforce the laws. Three years ago the New York Times reported on how NYC failed to enforce guns laws. Only 300 out of 1900 gun arrests… This is from a mayor who says he is the leading gun advocate in the United States? Give me a break.

Brian Lehrer: What kind of gun laws is the mayor failing to enforce? He’s already in trouble with stop and frisk, an aggressive anti-gun program.

Thomas King: But then they don’t do anything about it. By the way, stop and frisk is an abridgment of anybody’s rights against search and seizure… But they don’t enforce the laws. They arrest somebody, then let them go. It’s an abysmal record.

On Assault Weapons

Brian Lehrer: What legitimate use could someone have for these types of assault weapons?

Thomas King: What part of the first amendment do you want to lose? This is the same thing. We’re talking about a right that was guaranteed under the bill of rights and included into the constitution.

Brian Lehrer: The question is whether to draw the line. It’s already been ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect fully automatic machine guns, right?

Thomas King: Yes. What we’re talking about here is semi-automatic assault weapons that have been used since the 1950s.

Brian Lehrer: But what’s the thing you’re protecting, other than the abstraction of allowing people to have those –-

Thomas King: -- the 2nd amendment is an abstraction?

Brian Lehrer: -- the abstraction of where you draw the line. If you can’t use machine guns, what’s the point of including these semi-automatic weapons that get described as assault weapons. Where do you draw the line, what’s the public good?

Thomas King: I repeat my first question: what part of the 1st amendment do you want to give up?

On the Cultural Divide Over Guns

Brian Lehrer: It’s no secret that much of the divide over guns follows an upstate-downstate split here in New York. Talk to the downstate New York audience listening right now and tell them what you think they need to know in order to bridge the divide.

Thomas King: We’re all legal and lawful citizens of New York State and the United States. We’re parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts. This is something we've grown up with. It’s like living in a neighborhood and playing stickball. It’s the same thing – we go out to a range and we shoot. Can guns be dangerous? Yes they can. But I’ll tell you right now, you can put a gun on a table and leave it there, and it will not kill anybody – until somebody picks it up and pulls the trigger. If you’re a legal and lawful gun owner that’s not going to happen. We don’t come down and tell you how to live in your neighborhood, so please don’t come upstate and tell us how to live.

Guests:

Tags:

Comments [206]

Ed

What bothers me the most about this entire conversation is the blatant and utter misunderstanding and misuse of the word "assault weapon". What media proponents of stronger gun legislation and MANY citizens (especially in the lower portions of New York, where I grew up) simply do not comprehend is that the term "assault rifle" refers to nothing more than the mechanical and aesthetic design of these particular firearms. Functionally, they are no more dangerous or capable of killing than any semi-automatic hunting rifle. In fact, hunting rifles have the potential to be even more devastating, for the simple fact that they are often chambered in larger, more powerful calibers in order to bring down big game animals such as deer, elk, caribou and moose.

The second major misconception revolves around the meaning of the phrase "semi-automatic". The amount of misinformation swirling around among the brainwashed, staunch anti-gun community is truly staggering. Most New Yorkers I have spoken to about the issue of gun control literally could not even tell me the meaning of semi-automatic. They simply hear the word "automatic" and assume it indiscriminately sprays bullets in every direction with reckless abandon. I actually had to explain to several people that the ONLY thing "automatic" about a semi-automatic weapon is the chambering of the next round, and that the trigger has to be pulled each time a round is to be fired. How can we even begin to have an informed and intelligent debate, when one side refuses to even gather and learn the most rudimentary of facts related to the argument that they so fervently champion? I don't know about you, but I try to know what I'm talking about before I open my mouth.

All that being said, I am NOT in favor of just handing out guns to anyone walks into a gun shop. I think that owning a firearm is a great responsibility that is not to be taken lightly. People should be properly trained and mentally/emotionally evaluated (not just based on self-report) prior to legal possession of a firearm. However, it is absolutely criminal to deny any mentally-sound, law abiding citizen his or her natural right to self-defense.

"Guns are a hobby to us like stick ball." Yea, but we can't use an ax for a bat, and then when they try to stop us from using an ax complain that they're taking away our rights to stick ball.

I also love when gun extremists say, "Do you know what the Second Amendment means?" No. No one knows what the Second Amendment means. Second Amendment scholars don't even know what it means. It can mean whatever you want it to, it's so vague. It's as if these people are holding up a jumbled Rubic's Cube and yelling, "Here's the truth!" That "truth" is just your interpretation.

And they hold Second Amendment as gospel while conveniently ignoring more than half the text, the well-regulated militia clause which complicates the meaning and purpose of the second. How can you hold as gospel a text while simultaneously excising more than half of it? It's like cloaking yourself in the flag while ripping off the stripes, keeping only the stars, because that's the part of the fabric that appeals most to you.

Mr King sounded like an hysterical wimp. In fact most of the loudest spokesman for the NRA sound as though their shouldering/bolstering a gun is synonymous with "Manhood". How pathetic they are to need a gun to be a "MAN". Why else would someone need a 30 round clip and a "semi". An expert on Piers Morgan said he'd only fire a shot gun in his home (protecting it" because a higher caliber "assault" weapon might go through walls and doors injuring innocent by-standees. Who else would need the right to us "deadly force" under a stand Your Ground law but a wimp. They want to play soldiers/seal without risk to themselves. Congress is full of wimps, including the so-designated war hero John McCai who was treated like a guest rather than POW because of his grandfather' and father's military rank. Truthfulness and reason are hostages to the false debate over 2nd amendment "rights".

Great job following up today! These gun people are insane and have no moral leg to stand on any longer. They're just another disgusting aspect of movement conservatism's stranglehold on this country. We need to get 5 million anti-gun people to descend on D.C. WHILE congress is in session so that these intentionally deaf lawmakers will hear our voices and see our faces. Enough is Enough.

To Dan re your membership in the militia:Militia"The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five who are not serving in any force of the organized militia…who are…citizens…." 36 NY Consolidated Laws Art. I Military Law § 2 (2) 10 US Code §311 is similar:"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males at least 17 years…and under 45 years of age who are…citizens….(b) The classes of the militia are-…(c) ...the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia."

I'm not a constitutional expert, but it would seen like a no-brainer that we should strengthen gun laws. It seems absolutely ridiculous that people should be allowed to possess these dangerous weapons. No other western nation had such loose gun laws. Its high time that Americans turn their backs on the kind of gun culture that had little room in a civilized society.

The idea that a person could kill another person or group of people randomly for no reason whatsoever is not a part of human nature. When a person kills it is generally for a reason, wether it be for money ,hatred , anger . greed. I do not believe that these types of reasonless killings occurred before the use of psychotropics drugs were prescribed in this nation. The more prescriptions the more killings. This will be impossible to prove because the pharmaceutical industry along with the A.M.A. has made sure that the records of health of the shooters in all of the cases are sealed. This prevents any scientific investigation into any commonality of all of the people that kill for no apparent reason wether they use a gun or just stuff rocks down another kids throat. All the while they sit back collecting huge sums of money while the rest of us argue over the firing rate of a weapon that was designed over a hundred years ago. This is a cruel world we live in, I for one am disgusted. You will not see this mentioned on the radio or the television because the medical industry is the cash cow. ALL SOCIAL MALFEASANCE CAN BE TRACED TO A SOURCE OF WEALTH. Follow the money!

I’m so tired of the anti-gun slander crowd mislabeling self-awareness and willful accountability for personal safety as “paranoia”. The problem with you NPR Liberals is that you seek to dish off the responsibility for protecting your personal right to life and liberty to someone else. You think the police and military have a duty to protect you when in reality, there is no more fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Warren v. District of Columbia confirmed that the police owe no duty of protection to victims of criminal acts. They have no responsibility to put themselves in harms way to protect you. Simply put, that means that the responsibility of saving your own life in a dire emergency is YOURS, and yours alone. This is not only your responsibility, it is your RIGHT. And that right is protected by the 2nd Amd.

This has nothing to do with hunting. I support the 2nd Amd because I willingly accept the FACTS stated above and asking me to vote away, diminish, or accept infringements upon my ability to defend the lives of myself and my loved ones is unacceptable.

Look, what happened in Newton was tragic but the truth is: we will never fully eliminate evil cowards from our society. I support posting armed guards in schools. I support National Right to Carry. I support sending the message that schools and shopping malls are not easy targets. I support harsher penalties for gun crimes which may give criminals reason to think twice before using a gun to commit evil acts.

I DO NOT support political grandstanding and knee-jerk legislation that seeks to vilify and tie the hands of law abiding gun owners. The SAFE Act is misguided garbage legislation and should be repealed ASAP.

Its light recoil makes it the best self defense gun available for women even though it's really only a 22 caliber. It ability to mount flash lights and laser targeting devices make it ideal for home defense in the middle of the night. The ammunition (.223)is the cheapest and seeing that target shooters may shoot upwards of over 5000 rounds per year makes this rifle cost effective. It's the most popular gun in the U.S. by 10 to 1.In closing... those of you who know nothing about shooting or firearms should shut up because you have nothing to base your ridiculous opinions on.

No wonder NY is turning into a dump,I could care less about guns and believe in back ground checks for everyone who wants a gun. but you people live in fantasy land.Just what NY needs more stupid laws which do nothing to make people safer. The same people making all these laws never seem to have to live by them. Mr Mayor who is so against guns seems to have no problem being surrounded by them long as he's protected. Now line up like good sheep and pay your highest taxes in the country. that's what your king Andy expects of his peasant's.

This whole discussion is maddeningly inane. The notion that we should approach this argument by asking "what legitimate use does X have" is crazy. Has everyone, on both sides of this argument, forgotten every lesson of literature, history, American govt., etc? In what other arena do we approach prohibition of a class of objects by asking what legitimate use those items have or asking citizens to justify their need for ownership? In communist paradigms, sure. But in America?

And since when do we tolerate statements like "it's funny to see pro-gun advocates talk about mental health screening when they themselves are mentally ill." Ohhh, convincing. Are we not above this? Are we here to stroke ourselves, or have a debate?

And I'm disappointed by Brian. "What legitimate use for hunting or self-defense do these items have?" I don't hunt. I don't want to hunt. I see no Constitutional protection of hunting, and I'm sick of the word even being mentioned, frankly. It's the epitome of irrelevant.

Moreover, even if he doesn't grasp the Constitutionality issues or nature of American government, I'm frustrated that Brian would leverage the recent shootings. The behaviors of individuals in those cases, or the means by which they obtain firearms, represent an incredibly minor fraction of gun owners and gun ownership. And yet he chooses to reason from THOSE negligibly signficant cases. Not that tragedies are not significant - but their place in the STATISTICS of firearms ownership and use are numerically negligible. Period. And yet we appeal to those emotionally provocative cases to motivate and guide arguments and initiative. There is no reason being applied here.

FYI: i picked just one of CaptainDrG's (below) examples at random, and googling it (the Pearl High School shooting) revealed that it is both a common NRA talking point and a distorted account of the story that omits pretty a significant detail. That took me 2 minutes.

I think people that love their guns need to start taking common sense measures to meet regulators half way, lest the morally depraved gun nuts hijack their pro-gun story and eventually their only hope at staying armed to the teeth so they can defend themselves against imagined perps, varmints, other war reenactors, or whatever.

Mr. Darney is right; even unloaded ARs have scared off criminals, like the recent event upstate.

That's the big secret: Every year 1.9 million crimes are stopped when the criminal suddenly realizes that his intended victim is armed. Last year 5 (five) people were killed in NY by rifles, so why this "push" to demonize guns and their owners?

What is the plan after all ARs are "registered"? Look at California; ARs were registered years ago, now legislation is introduced to confiscate them. Why? What's the goal?

Apart from that question, consider what the practical aspects of a gun ban would cause regarding simple violent crime.

1.3 million violent crimes in 2011. 1.9 million prevented by gun owners. Do you really want violent crime rate to double, so it's the same as Canada? Or become like the Gun-Free UK where the violent crime rate is 3.5 times ours?

Do you want to see an additional 74,000 women raped next year? Check out the news from Mexico, where only criminals and the government have guns.

What are you trying to justify with this insanity?

Its time for you to go to the FBI website and read the Uniform Crime Report statistics. Stop getting your "facts" from your friend's Facebook pages and the Democratic National Committee's talking points.

Mr King was right on the money when he described the draconian gun laws Governor Cuomo just signed into law in addition to the hundreds of nonsense gun laws that already exist in the State. For some reason New York State has an overly aggressive policy towards the rights of legal gun owners.

To Joe from Nearby - Your Mother Jones article is wrong on mass shootings:Mass shootings stopped - TheBlaze Jan. 11, 2013False assertion: "never had a civilian stop a shooting” ...claim is easily debunked. In fact, TheBlaze has reported extensively on situations where law-abiding gun owners have exercised their Second Amendment right to neutralize a threat.

In December, 2012, Jesus Manuel Garcia opened fire at a movie theater in San Antonio, shooting and wounding an innocent 49-year-old man. An off-duty sergeant then fired four shots with her firearm, wounding the gunman and preventing any further injuries. In this case, the female who stopped the shooting was trained by law enforcement.

On Dec. 11, 2012, a man shot and killed two people in a mall in Clackamas, Ore. before taking his own life. Nick Meli, a concealed carry holder, told KGW NewsChannel 8 that the last shot he fired after seeing his concealed handgun was “used on himself.”

The Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway debunked this biased line of thinking. He writes: “There are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don’t stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that ‘the shooter took the lives of at least four people.’”Examples where armed civilians, were able to neutralize a lawless shooter:

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

In another example, 24-year-old Matthew Murray opened fire at a church in Colorado Springs in 2007. Volunteer security guard and church member Jeanne Assam returned fire and shot him several times. Wounded badly, Murray then took his own life. Two people were killed in the shooting.

Darney says:"What use is an AR15?• Self defense of self and family (many cases can be documented, often by youngsters and women)• Informal target shooting at hundreds of sites• Formal target shooting at our National Matches• Predator and varmint shooting• 3 gun action shooting competitions• Military collecting and re-enacting"

Response to Darney, for people without a lot of time (spoiler alert: his first point is not true):

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

We get that you like your guns and want to re-enact, shoot varmints, and do target shooting, but you should also explain how the idea of "rights" you have concocted (in the face of actual research findings that show much of what you purport is an act of imagination) to support your private desires justifies that the common good (fewer people getting shot by guns) be dismissed out of hand. Society can't wait for pro-gun zealots and their manufacturing lobbies to come to Jesus and realize their promotion of personal militarization is almost entirely misconceived. If you want to keep shooting, you should read the writing on the wall, stop spewing out misinformation and figure out ways to make this country safer while protecting your violent hobbies.

John E. Darney from Pine Bush, NY:"Explain to me how disarming or infringing my rights will make the world a safer place."

1) Please show us where anyone said anything about "disarming" anyone. Yeah, thanks for the fals strawman argument.

2) "Infringing"- Read the Heller case. It says that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

I have four grandsons 10 and under and I love them dearly so I can in some small measure understand the grief in the recent grotesque acts in Newtown, CT.

The Second Amendment isn’t about deer hunting. It’s about defense of yourself, your family, your community, state, or country from enemies, foreign or domestic. It’s also about private property rights and the pursuit of happiness.

Gary Kleck, Ph.D. has stated that firearms are used to prevent crimes of violence about 2.5 million times per year.Interesting quotes from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics:• “Gun murders are at the lowest rate since 1981.”• “Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.”• “After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.”• “Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994.”Blunt instruments are used in more murders than rifles. Are you aware that gun sales and ownership are at all time highs? Yet violent crime is at historic lows in spite of or perhaps because of this.

What use is an AR15?• Self defense of self and family (many cases can be documented, often by youngsters and women)• Informal target shooting at hundreds of sites• Formal target shooting at our National Matches• Predator and varmint shooting• 3 gun action shooting competitions• Military collecting and re-enacting

Do have any idea how many veterans we have in this state that carried ARs in defense of our country from Vietnam on and that now own their own civilian version for various reasons?

The first successful semi-automatic rifle was invented by German-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher ~1895. Probably the most popular and common pistol is the 1911 Colt. Even the AR15 itself is not new having been developed in the mid-1950s. I remember when it was first introduced in 1959. Everyone laughed at the puny cartridge and the gun was referred to as the Matty Mattel plastic rifle, mouse gun, etc. Now it is portrayed as so deadly.

We have to wonder if semi-automatic firearms weren’t such a huge problem for 50 or more years, what changed? Could it be all the drugs, legal and otherwise, whose use has become so commonplace, especially among our youth? One thing that these mass murderers all have in common is the use of prescription drugs.

For the record, I’m 65 years old and have owned firearms since I was 12, never shot anyone, committed a crime, had an accident, or otherwise abused my rights. I am permanently certified to teach in NY, a husband of 43 years, father of 2, grandfather of 4. I also taught NYS hunter safety for 8 years and currently teach the NRA Basic Pistol Safety class to close to 100 people a year as an NRA Certified Shotgun and Pistol Instructor. Besides my NYS carry concealed permit, I have handgun licenses from FL and PA along with a long gun license from the Dominion of Canada. All required background checks, references, etc.

Explain to me how disarming or infringing my rights will make the world a safer place.

'Seven states – California, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Colorado – have, in the past month, introduced bills to have gun owners put their money where their mouth is: liability insurance for their firearms, codifying that responsibility if their firearms are used incorrectly – used by children who find them, by criminals who easily steal them; by people to whom they sell them without requiring a background check.'Finally, some sanity.

I agree with the commenter that said, "BL you're too good of an interviewer to let Mr King weasel out of answering your question as to why any citizen/hunter needs a 100-round magazine. He evaded the question and you let him. Jeez, you can be fair and balanced and still be a dogged pursuer of a straight answer." You should have at least said -'You're not answering the question'

Mr. King kept responding with "Which part of your first amendment rights would you give up?" The obvious answer is: Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater when there is none! The right to bear arms does not take precedence over public safety. We all know that the only difference between a fully automatic and a semi-automatic rifle is that with the semi - you have to take your finger off the trigger for a split second in order to fire another blast of bullets. Some difference!

@Dan-you are the perfect example of what I mean about people that don't have a clue about the constitution and it's meaning...read what the founding father's said was their intention for the second amendment...I don't have to be in a militia to own a firearm.

Don't question my service son...I highly doubt that you did serve...if you did you were probably some FOBBIT that sat in an AC'd TOC all day long. Don't forget your oath (if you actually served).

So tell us, what "militia" are you now a part of?Personally, I've never seen so many "militia men" in search of non-existent "militias."

Thank you for your claimed service to our country (I did mine as well), but that doesn't give you any extra cred over anyone else. The war's over, soldier, and if you're really this paranoid, seek help.

Dan, you wrote: "Obviously the SCOTUS disagrees with your interpretation of the word "infringed." The SCOTUS said in the Heller case that firearms CAN be regulated under the 2d Amendment.

I'm not arguing with you, Dan. But that's why I wrote:

"The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia with the arms they obviously already own for personal protection in order to fight Federal government tyranny...So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.

The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on."

-Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0-Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

-Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.-For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.-43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.-In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

-Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.-Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.-In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

-People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.(Source is stated below.)

What part of the second amendment is confusing to you people? It has nothing to do with hunting...those that bring up that "argument" show what little knowledge that they actually have about the constitution. I don't need a reason to own a 100 round magazine or an "assault rifle." Which is another media and politically driven term. My rifles have never "assaulted" anybody so how can they be deemed assault weapons? A well regulated militia as most ignorant people point out is a completely seperate point from the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed...hence the comma. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you guys not understand? Or NY's own more strongly worded "cannot be infringed". You anti-gun "nuts" fail to realize that the United States is not a Democracy...it's a Federally Constituted Republic...meaning the laws and limits are set up by the Constitution are the laws of the land and that any new law enacted against it is not a law and is to be ignored. To make it easier to understand for ya...even if 99.99% of the population wanted a ban on "assault weapons" it doesn't matter because it is protected in the Constitution. Here's another simple way to explain it to you anti-gun nuts...if your cat was being attacked by neighborhood dogs, would you de-claw the cat so it couldn't defend itself? The AR-15 is the muzzleloader of today..I bring this up for those of you who are going to cry out that the Constitution was written along time ago. Anti-gunner's also fail to realize that the police are not First Responders....WE ARE...until the police get there (which is usually too late because they are overworked, undermanned and spread out all over kingdom come). The police are the Second Responder's. They usually get there in time to seal off the crime scene and take the pictures of your dead body. Until they arrive I want the maximum amount of fire power that I can defend my wife and kids with...not limitations. Funny (sad not funny haha) that most of the anti-gunner's are against guns but for abortion which is responsible for the murder of millions of children each year. One last thing...MOLON LABE...I did not serve a year in Iraq defending other people's freedoms only to come home and lose mine here. So, if you really want them that badly...MOLON LABE.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings, when stopped by police, is 14.29 dead.The average number of people killed in a mass shooting, when stopped by a citizen, is 2.33 dead.The average number of people killed in a mass shooting, when stopped by an unarmed citizen is 2.6 dead.The average number of people killed in a mass shooting, when stopped by an citizen with a gun is 1.8.

So the best way to prevent mass shootings with many dead, is to enable armed citizens to be in most crowds.This is best accomplished by allowing the law-abiding to carry guns.

I applaud Mr. King for his rational comments. Dilution of any right guaranteed by the US Constitution is unacceptable.The recent spate of anti-gun legislative attempts all fall into one or all of these patterns:a) they are formulated by those who are ignorant of the basic nomenclature and classification of firearms, let alone their history and development.b) they are reactive, rather than thoughtful. As such, their proponents telegraph to all their immaturity and lack of good reason and good judgment. Many of these proposed laws are downright silly. c) they violate the United States Constitution and will not pass judicial review.d) they are vague, misleading, difficult to understand, contradictory and pre-emptive rather than corrective.e) they do not save lives. They do not save children. They do not prevent criminality. They do not cure the mentally ill. They do not deter.f) they focus on inanimate objects, rather than the perpetrators. We made the same mistake with prohibition. How can we not learn from history?But all of these factors pale in front of this one other consideration: All lawful gun owners are Über-Honest and Über-Law Abiding. They hold their rights under the US Constitution so dear that they will do nothing that would jeopardize them. As a class, they take no lives and commit no crimes. They set the norm for law-abiding citizens who are not interested in owning weapons of any kind. They bring up their children to be law-abiding as well. But the new norm among politicians is to demonize the law-abiding, to criminalize them by the stroke of a politician’s pen, and to proscribe them by legislative fiat.The numbers of new criminals are staggering. Begin with, for example, every single law enforcement officer in the State of New York. That’s just plain dumb, dumber and dumbest. What the politicians have done is to criminalize a critical mass of the populace. The same stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance that criminalized the masses of honest people has divided and polarized the country. What kind of government makes war on half its population?What kind of precedent does this set for other classes, other groups, of races, of ethnicities, of political beliefs? United we stand, divided we fall. The same politicians who criminalize the innocent are the ones who will take away your life, your liberty, your property whenever it suits them.We all deserve better. Much, much better.

Thomas King sounded like a fool. When he was asked what reason would a person need to own a semi automatic weapon he obviously had no answer so he injects a completely unrelated topic of the first amendment. I'd also like to know where he came up with the figure 99.9% of guns are owned by legal gun owners. Source please? Maybe someone should remind him that those 20 kids were killed by a legally owned firearm. He also seems to lack civility.

If there was ever any doubt that there needs to be some sort of gun control in this country all any reasonable individual needs to do is listen to this incoherent rant by Thomas King. It is very scary to think that this raving lunatic is in the possession of guns.

BL you're too good of an interviewer to let Mr King weasel out of answering your question as to why any citizen/hunter needs a 100-round magazine. He evaded the question and you let him. Jeez, you can be fair and balanced and still be a dogged pursuer of a straight answer.

I have given up on this one, but what bothers me the most is that the pro-gun side seems to only make very strong emotional arguments about gun ownership and the pro-control side seems to be making arguments with a lot of (best available) statistics and data (not to exclude the fact that there are pro-control people making emotional arguments as well). I dont think that emotion makes for good policy and I would welcome some smart pro-gun people to sit and make a real case of why controlling guns more would somehow curtail their lives in a way that the greater good is not served. Because all I hear are very strongly worded emotional statements that not only make me afraid for us as a nation, but make be afraid of some of these gun owners (this guest clearly has anger, and owns guns!!!) and what they might do. Moreover, this becomes oddly tangled up in the venn diagram of right-wing political slant and gun ownership. How can you logically make the argument for more mental heath care at the same time you spent 2 years railing against heath care reform and how this is encroachment. I am willing to hear the other side on this one, but this boy from Maine, who owns guns, knows and has hunted, and has a strong dislike for government, is firmly in the more control camp until I hear a well structured argument against it.

Pam from ny, your right here. You need some one to debate this guest who knows a lot about guns. Hunting, target shooting and gun laws national and state so on. And who too owns and has owned guns. You really have to know something about fire arms to counter some of the bull sh.. this guy was putting out there.

@ Wendy: I agree. Brian is so smart, but perhaps because he is an NPR radio host, and I know NPR provides some of the most balanced news that's available, the need to not appear to have a position as a host gets in the way of getting a straight answer. He did state he position early on in the interview, and I'd hoped he would be a bit more of a tiger in the interview.

Anyone with any common sense listening could see that this King had no real response to back up his fierce and disgustingly fearful position that under no circumstances should any laws be enacted to prevent the sale, distribution, and possession of high capacity guns.

How many muskets equal the firing power of an Ak-47? Would the Framers and the founding citizens of this country rethink this amendment if they saw their neighbors owning 100 loaded muskets? A musket in every corner of the cabin, under every rock on their land, sitting behind every fence, in every stable and chicken coup. Could you imagine? I am sure the Founding citizens of our country had to deal with gun-nuts too.

Arthur Pellman from Port Washington, Ny: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” "The amendment does not say arms could not be regulated."

What do you think "shall not be infringed" means? A regulation is an infringement.

Thank you Brian, we need to hear this kind of opinion without having to listen to Fox or Rush Limbaugh. We can't live in a bubble. Meanwhile, I wonder if this guy still has his permit: http://gothamist.com/2012/11/22/billionaire_loses_weapons_gains_psy.php

I have great sympathy for the thoughts that predominate in all of the comments. However, folks, EMOTION DOESN'T NEGATE VALID POINTS. (I'm not saying that his points are valid.) To those who can't sympathize with "EMOTION DOESN'T NEGATE VALID POINTS," I am scared of you.

For a defender to go on the offensive is a valid tactic. Brian-- you should have prepared better for this interview. You owe it to your audience to re-sched. this topic with articulate well-informed guests' debating each other.

The more Tom King talked today, the more NRA lies he provided to state legislators to knock down, point by point, when they debate gun control. It will be a figurative bloodbath in Albany before they're done with this guy. Brilliant set-up Brian.

Thomas King: The illegal guns brought into NYC often start out having serial numbers but they are filled off by the traffickers and sellers.

It's difficult to listen to his near histrionic tone, getting extremely emotional, angry, is fearful, freaking out like his 'gun' rights are paramount to all logic, missing the bigger picture. It's pathetic and bizarre he doesn't even know what radio station he's talking to...(an MSNBC sister affiliate?) Clearly he's living in an upstate NY bubble where legal guns owners are saints, guns are never stolen, bad things never happen, good people never get angry and hurt others with their legal licensed guns, and just following the 'rules' makes it all ok. Maybe he needs to travel more to get an idea how guns are *really* used elsewhere...

I'd have respected his viewpoint more if he had concrete ideas how rules already on the books can be applied, rather that aiming his vitriol at a radio host trying to open the dialogue and discuss facts. Mr. King obviously cares more for and respects guns rights more than the lives of people. The founding fathers who wrote the 2nd Amendment never could've imagined the disgusting application and misinterpretation of how this right is being use in the modern era. It was written for a very very different time. You can cherry pick right all you want, because they apply to you or increase your power- folks do that all the time with the Bible and Koran but I doubt such passion is applied to all Amendments. Telling.

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution which states a purpose.-WikipediaThe Second Amendment is really a state’s rights amendment. People were allowed to own guns so they might serve in a “well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” Most of the soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War fought in state militias. They bore arms in state militias. To many in the various states, the new constitution was a threat to those states which might wish to have a military force, a militia. The Continental Army was under clothed, under-fed, under-armed, but fortunately, brilliantly led. So the 2’nd amendment assured the states that they could a organize a militia. The question of banning guns was not an issue. People needed guns to live. They hunted for food. They needed protection from Indians. The amendment does not say arms could not be regulated.Arthur Pellman

I think Brian is a brilliant interviewer, but I think he got a bit hijacked by Thomas King. These people are very good at turning the discussion around - bringing up little known "facts" and asking "are you aware" etc, and getting the interviewer off balance. I think an effective way to handle this is to stick with a couple of basic questions - like the stat that having a gun in the home is more likely to result in injury to the gun owner than protection. Or the question of what legitimate use can anyone have for owning a military style semi-automatic weapon. Or what rational reason is there to be against universal background checks or registering guns by their serial number. Brian did ask all these questions, but I kept wishing he would stay with them and just hammer away until he got a straight answer from Mr. King.

An earlier commenter alluded to this. I wanted to really make a point of it here because it's something that I've been pondering as well. How many of these ardent Second Amendment defenders are exercising their other rights as provided by the Bill of Rights? How many are actively participating when it comes to matters other than guns? Protesting, calling their elected leaders, talking with their community...even voting? Can't help but wonder the stats on that!

This guy keeps talking about transferring guns to his son or grandson without a background check as if that's a sacred right. But It's not like you get to drive a car without a license just because your dad gave it to you. I don't know this guy. I don't his kid. Everyone always wants to believe that they're the responsible gun owners, and it's the other people who are the "criminals." Nobody ever thinks that they're the ones who need a background check. Guess what: I bet Nancy Lanza considered herself to be a responsible gun owner with a legal, safe rifle, right up until the last minute of her life.

The biggest problem in this country is the ranting and raving of mentally deficient individuals like Mr. King who would equate gun ownership and use in upstate New York with stick ball. To hear the passion and ferocity in his voice supporting the "right" of gun ownership in this country is what has eroded the culture and safety of this country.

I'm originally from Canada and a proponent of gun ownership like Mr. King would at least be run out of town and at most jailed for incitement of violence. Nowhere in the constitution, which the gun lobbyists use as a protective shield every time they try to support the use of semi-automatic weapons, does it suggest that individuals have the right to bear arms for use beyond the original intent, which was for the ability to act in a militia to protect the new nations viability. With a standing army, reserves etc... the second amendment defense is ridiculous and the use of large magazines and semi-automatic weapons in recreational activities is a caricature of American culture. Mr. Kind is, like most who profess support for more guns as protection against the mentally insane, just as insane as those who would use guns on other people. Needles with acid in them are also not dangerous until someone pics them up and injects someone. Anthrax is also not dangerous until someone atomizes it, so the ongoing comment that guns aren't dangeorus is as ridiculous as this person and the poeple that support him. He should be thrown in jail for supporting the use of guns and their proliferation as they are indeed what causes the death of children and adults with no distinction between what loss of life is more agregious than another.

This country is doomed to spiral into a Western Iraq as venomous, rabid gun lobbyists take over this country to support the growth and profitability of gun companies and the militias that desire to own assault rifles and other guns with multiple clips. Ultimately, Mr. King did not respond to Brian's question about why he and his members need access to large clip magazines (call them what you what as the lawyers are playing semantics as usual. Bullets are bullets!) and semi-automatic weapons for recreation. Officers are dying, children are dying, people are dying every day and all because the country is cowed by death merchants. What a sad state of American affairs which sees no signs of improving when people like Mr. King can rave on and on about the benefits of gun ownership. I don't own a gun, see no need for one, since the first person I would turn it on is Mr. King and his associates who threaten my safety by pushing for more people to won guns of all kinds 9below fully automatic weapons... what a fool Mr. King is. He was hard to listen to and props for Brian for not cutting him off).

Loughner was not stopped by someone with a gun. That was one this guy's particularly distressing lies. Loughner was stopped by the combined actions of several people after he dropped the gun magazine. Someone with a concealed carry permit did show up near the end of this effort -- but he never drew his gun.He certainly never confronted Loughner with it.

The reason that the concealed weapon holder disarming Gabrielle Gifford's shooter is not reported is because it's not true. There was someone in the shopping plaza with a concealed weapon and I saw an interview with him shortly after the shooting. He said that when he got to the shooting scene, the shooter had been disarmed by the staffer and he almost shot the staffer because he was holding the gun. I'm a little disappointed in The Brian Lehrer show for not doing more research to challenge Thomas King's statements, including the national laws he says are on the books.

@dboy- As you said Loughner was restrained by unarmed people. The thing is this guy has no interest in the truth. That might interrupt his crazy ranting and hurt his argument. It is so much easier to argue your case when you don't have to be handcuffed by facts.

You needed to ask him what qualifies him to assume that his son, whom he wants to leave his guns to, does not have psychological problems? He wants people with mental problems to be prevented from purchasing guns, yet he rejects the need for psychological profiles as a prerequisite for a gun license.And what about all the (gun) murders committed by partners and spouses currently in the courts today?

Bravisimo! You could not have chosen a better gun advocate than Mr. King. He lost his composure so easily, and couldn't answer Bryan's questions except to regurgitate the NRA mantra. Great questioning, Brian. It was also interesting how Mr. King kept mixing up the first and second ammendments. Your last question about cultural differences was spot on, but Mr. King again disregarded the issue which is an important one. Great job Brian.

Taher from Croton on Hudson: Under the 2nd Amendment, can I have a tank, a RPG, an anti aircraft missile? How about an atomic bomb folks? CAN I HAVE AN ATOMIC BOMB, PLEASE? I have two responses:

1) Yes—according to the Second Amendment.

2) No. Only Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama and the government he presides over can have those things because they know how to use them responsibly.

Obama's Drone War on innocent civilians in Asiahttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/public-editor/questions-on-drones-unanswered-still.html

"The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in Britain has estimated that, in the first three years after President Obama took office, between 282 and 535 civilians were credibly reported killed by drone strikes — including more than 60 children."

Loughner was tackeled, a gun did not stop him. From wikipedia "Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten Loughner."

OMG -- Brian thanks for hanging in there with this nut job. I think that my husband should certify him (he's a psychologist) and we could strap him down and let him play with video games. JK as my 13 year old says. Hahah, I just bought Dead Space III. A much safer way to get my jollies out by shooting necromorphs. About all someone could to with my video game is try to smash someone on the head with the disk which probably couldn't even cause a concussion. Actually, I'd like to lock this guy up with my brother who really needs to retire from being and EMT firefighter. He'd give this guy a good earful on the situations in which lawful gun owners had to deal with the aftermath of a family member using their guns on another member or themselves. When my brother has a too few many beers he calls me up to share about what he's witnessed because he thinks that I've seen enough starving babies that I can listen to him.

Thank you Brian Lehrer for showing what an awesomely democratic socitey we live in by giving this yahoo the chance to express his deranged views. No one in their right mind pays attention to a rant, if he would've acted like a civilized human someone could've given him a shred of crediblity.

I found this guest alarmingly unhinged, and EXACTLY the type of individual I would not want having a gun lying around in his own home. Not a surprise that he is their President. Thank you, Brian, for being a professional and courteous host.

A few recent very insightful articles on this issue, and one thing in particular that really puts this NRA rant about an individual's right to protect themself with a gun under the Constitution:

"Bush appointed NRA favorite John Ashcroft as attorney general, who, in May 2001, announced that for the first time in the nation's history the Justice Department had adopted the view, long championed by the NRA, that the Second Amendment confers an individual, not a collective, right to bear arms."

How the NRA and gun industry came to take control of politics:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-nra-vs-america-20130131#ixzz2K8PQt4pu

And don't tell me that when you grow-up being marketed AR-15's, that you can really separate the "playground" from reality. "There is no legitimate reason children should not learn to safely use an AR-15 for recreation," he said.

How the gun industry is aggressively marketing to kids:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/selling-a-new-generation-on-guns.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hpw&

This guy just sounds stupid. How does the 2nd amendment guarantee something the founders never imagined existing. Still don't understand why anyone needs an assault weapon. Is it so they can use them in a competition? Is that the reason? Why is that question never answered. No one needs them for sport hunting. Unbelievable.

Too much emotion from the "gunner." The conversation needs to be intellectual and thoughtful not emotional. He failed to make any legitimate case for allowing assault weapons. Some people's hobby is not a valid reason for allowing the sale of weapons of moderate destruction. We do not allow ownership of fully-automatic weapons or bomb-building materials. Why should we allow a weapon that can kill 13 people in fewer than 13 seconds.

Why is one of the catch-phrases of the NRA "We are mothers, uncles, fathers, sons...", as if this is going to put it all into cozy perspective? Who among us isn't a mother, son, father, daughter, uncle? And wasn't it a son (Adam) who killed his gun-loving mother and then proceeded to Sandy Hook to do the same to other six and seven-year old sons and daughters?

I am so tired of hearing about some gun toter's right without legitimate reason. The only thing is about a right that was instated over 200 years ago?What about MY right to feel safe? I fear to put my son on a school bus, go to the movies, send him to school...Mental health is a serious issue but it seems to be the scapegoat for the NRA. I don't get why they are so afraid of making gun laws and obtainment safer??

I turned the radio off--not because I'm not interested in this debate, but because I'm not interested in hearing someone who is rude, ignorant, and a bully be allowed to shoot their mouth off without being actually challenged. I'm disappointed. If NPR isn't going to give these guys a hard time, who is? Brian doesn't have to do it, if he wants to maintain journalistic distance, or something, but maybe you could have two guests with opposing views, and let them go at it...SOMEthing, so I don't have to just sit there and listen to these puffed-up gun idiots stand on a soapbox and talk to me like I'm the crazy one without ever hearing anyone challenge their disjointed, indefensible ideas. It's disgusting and enraging.

I live in the Adirondacks and Thomas King doesn't speak for me. A loaded gun on a table is an accident waiting to happen, and if someone is angry, it is a murder waiting to happen. What about my right not to be anxious and afraid of people with guns? I was in Phoenix last week and was very uncomfortable with people carrying revolvers western style. There were several shootings while I was there.

This guys says he is not a mental health professional, yet we should allow him to judge the mental capcity of his son or grandson in handing down a gun without independent background checks. Additionally, I heard him say that requiring a background check even in the case where a gun is handed down to his son is something "He" couldnt live with. The problem with these guys is they think only of themselves they do not for one instant think that these laws are not meant to punish them but to help protect the general public which includes them. His son could not drive a car that he gave him without a license.

I'm so bored with "guns don't kill people people do." So bored. Maybe they should change the expression to "People don't kill 30 people in 20 seconds, people with semi-automatic high capacity weapons do." Maybe that will get through to these half-wits.

A recent study showed that having a gun in the home is 47 times more likely to cause harm to the inhabitants than to be used in protection. This fact was on your own show Brian. It seems worth while to ask your guest to respond to this.

Insurance on each gun purchased. Renewable every year.Liability for all damages (physical and psychological) caused by each gun, paid for by the manufacturer and the insured.Register every gun. What's the problem?Is it that manufacturers are afraid their profit will take a nosedive?Sheez.

Yes it is tragic that these innocent kids/teachers/mother were killed but there is something way more important here. The striping away of our rights. It is naive to think that things will be better after taking away law-abiding citizens right to bear arms. There are many examples in other parts of the world that gun-control does not work.If you think that just some innocent kids being killed is a horrific tragedy then why don't you feel that way for all the mothers, fathers, sons, daughters etc after they have received news that their son(s) have been killed in combat while defending our freedoms. The very freedoms that you liberals want us to relinquish for some fake security. You all need to look at the BIG picture. Its not about a few kids/people here and there. Its about all those that have fought and died defending and protecting our Constitutional rights.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one's right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.

(http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf)

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia with the arms they obviously already own for personal protection in order to fight Federal government tyranny. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to do that today would be a military-style assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.

The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on.

Thomas King, you are making good points, but you undermine you case when you say that when Brian asks a question, that the question perpetuates ignorance. Brian is being a very gracious host and giving you a forum to speak. I'm a liberal who is somewhat on the fence on gun control. You make good points and I am somewhat sympathetic to your frustration, but there is really not need to attack Brian, who is, for the most part, asking questions which are actually allowing you to set some of us liberals straight on the real answers.

Joe Zamudio was at Gabby Gifford's appearance when she was shot. He had a gun in his pocket. He heard someone yell that a guy had a gun. He started to pull the gun out of his pocket but then for some reason put it b ack. He ran over and grabbed the gunman. But it turns out the guy he thought was the gunman wasn't. He feels very fortunate that he hesitated and didn't shoot the guy he thought incorrectly was the gunman.

Again I have to say that this guy made a big mistake coming on to defend his views. He did nothing to advance his cause but just reinforced the feeling that gun lovers are crazy.

I'm with Annette from Harlem. I did actually turn the radio (computer) off. If I wanted to listen to a foaming at the mouth rager, there's plenty of that to be found elsewhere on the "dial." Brian, your sang froid is admirable. Just switched back on. Dude sounds like he exhausted himself...and he's gone.

What part of "well-regulated" doesn't this guy understand. The purpose was to protect the US from invasion, etc. because we didn't have an army. Nothing wrong with REGULATION. You're not giving up any "rights."

He's saying there's no point in making a law because the criminals will break the law. So maybe we should do away with laws pertaining to robbery, or murder, etc.

Oh dear! These NRA people are soooo angry. It's impossible to have a reasoned conversation with them. Good try, Brian. I would have lost my temper by now. The only thing that gives me hope is that I think they are spitting in the wind and trying to hold back the tide. They'll lose in the end.

Mr. King's contention that the second amendment is absolute is absurd. The second amendment is *limited* to a certain segment of the population; the first amendment is *not*. The most despicable criminal still has the right to speech and religion, but *not* to a gun. Comparing the two amendments without noting the inherent restrictions in the second is the weakest tactic "gun rights" advocates try to pull.

From what I heard (on WNYC), it was unarmed people who got the gun away from Jared Loughner when his 1st magazine ran out & grabbed him, & the person w/the legal gun came within 1/2 second of shooting the wrong person (who was holding the gun that had been taken away from him).

I think the NYSRPA needs to elect a new President. Mr. King has done a great disservice to his members through this interview. First, for his rabid, irrational attitude. Second, because he doesn't understand that BL is giving him an opportunity to make his case, and he's ruining it for himself.

This guy is a bully. A calm discussion...without all the sputtering, would help us understand his point of view.Insurance on all guns...should be a given.Liability for all damage caused by guns, should be paid by manufacturers."It's not the gun, it's the people"...nope...it's the access to killing machines.

So we need more people carrying concealed weapons to be on site as in the Giffords case? Great idea! But how does King propose to anticipate these attacks to make sure these gun carriers happen to be there by chance? Is there an app for that?

Ok...this is about one of the most aggressive and appauling interviews... When I hear people like this, I am reminded about the how the country has gotten to the crazy place it has....the condescending tone and crazy talk is sad and upsetting...Let them all carry muskets .....that is what those writing the constitution knew....Brian please stop this travastity

This caller's comment that there are no untraceable weapons out there is untrue. I know, at least, a dozen people that have in their possession an untraceable handgun. I grew up with untraceable guns until I turned them in to the police upon my adulthood. I think this caller is clueless.

Mr. King said that the serial no. on a gun can be used to trace its owner & sale history, but that's only true for legal sales. If the gun is sold (or otherwise transferred) illegally or is stolen, the serial no. is no help in tracing it.

How crazy? This guy advocates for greater restrictions on mentally ill people seeking to purchase a gun, but advocates for a loophole that will allow him to buy and transfer to his potentially mentally ill family member a gun of any capacity. Pleeeeeezzzzzzze!!!!!! These people aren't serious.

I agree with Jeff. Ask him about liability insurance. Brian, you are doing a great job, but this guy's hysteria is making me want to turn the radio off. Also, his pushing all of the problem on "criminals" borders on race-baiting.

Brian and the guest might be talking past each other. I'm not sure that the guest is saying that his son should not have a background check for his first gun. He may just be saying that he should not have to have a check for every subsequent purchase or gift.

What a nauseating man. FYI - mental health illness rates are similar in the US as all other developed countries. Guns ownership and gun crime, wounding, killing are all much higher in the US than in those other countries. Blaming the mentally ill & the professionals treating them for gun violence sickening, perverse.

These people do anything, say anything to avoid responsibility. The right to own a gun is not even anywhere near being an issue - they fight just to have it all regardless of the cost to others.

Require that all gun owners be registered as members of a well regulated militia. With numerous regulations governing ownership and fitness to be a member. Other wise like the constitution says... infringe on the false right to keep and bear arms.

Asasult weapons should be classified as weapons of mass destruction. YOu cant own a fragmentation bomb or an assault rifle

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Mr. King proved our point--background checks DO work. Unfortunately, it was the parent in the Connecticut case who failed, by providing weapons of war in a home with a mentally ill son. If she had not had those guns, those shootings would never have occurred.

Where's the anger about victims of gun violence? I don't hear any concern about the irreparable violence widespread ownership of guns enables. All I hear is anger about gun owners' possessions being more strictly regulated.

- Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.- An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.- 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

Wow this guy is incredible. He just says whatever he wants to with no regard for the facts. I saw the old video clip where LaPierre called for universal background checks. He is angry and he is unconvincing in his argument. He isn't a good advocate for his cause. He comes across as an angry crazy zealot with as I said no regard for facts and reality.

Show Archive

Feeds

WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR, PRI and American Public Media, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.